The Wapo article in question

Imagine having to finger your instrument’s clitorises for it to change notes.

Calorie apps are a ploy by ZOG to get me to stop drinking their sunflower oil (I won’t).

a) Being a christian really only requires a declaration of belief, AFAIK b) I’m genuinely convinced a lot of grifters believe their own bs. Not all of it, obviously, but I think he really does believe that he is a christian paragon and that the US should be returned to being christian nation, and any falsehood he knowingly advances is justified because it advances those goals. Not to say that this wouldn’t change if the tides in US politics turned, but I’m pretty sure that most professional liars like him genuinely eat their own manure.

I mean, he probably is a christian, he’s just not very good at it.

only good thing to come from that whole situation

Even if your moral system solves those “problems”, you just “solved” them by substituting the obvious and logical base of utility through personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is no inherent good, unlike utility, if people are unhappy/“feel bad”, it doesn’t matter how personally responsible everyone is being, that world is still a shit place.

Also, the threat isn’t imagined. I can assure you that there are a lot more than one person on earth who would choose to kill as many people as possible if given the option.

Idk which moral system you operate under, but I’m concerned with minimising human suffering. That implies hitting kill because chances of a mass murderer are too high not to. You also don’t follow traffic laws to a t, but exercise caution because you don’t really care whose fault it ends up being, you want to avoid bad outcomes (in this case the extinction of humankind).

Why do you care whose fault it is? You’d want to minimise human deaths, not win a blame game.

I just calculated the sum from n=0 to 32 (because 2^33>current global population). And that calculation implies that the chance of catching someone willing to kill all of humanity would have to be lower than 1/8 billion for the expected value of doubling it to be larger than just killing one person.

It does create the funny paradox where, up to a certain point, a rational utilitarian would choose to kill and a rational mass murderer trying to maximise deaths would choose to double it.

You would need a crazy low probability of a lunatic or a mass murderer being down the line to justify not to kill one person

Edit: Sum(2^n (1-p)^(n-1) p) ~ Sum(2^n p) for p small. So you’d need a p= (2×2^32 -2) ~ 1/(8 billion) chance of catching a psycho for expected values to be equal. I.e. there is only a single person tops who would decide to kill all on earth.

I’ve just now decided that his wife probably isn’t ‘babying’ him but that she’s prolly just a weeaboo,

Idk if I speak for other people here but being critical of capitalism doesn’t necessarily mean you want to copy paste North Korea. Or the Ukrainian SSR.